”Turnbough arrives as Mr. Crutcher and Officer Shelby are at the rear of the abandoned vehicle and takes a position to Officer Shelby’s left. He tells her that he has his Taser ready.”

Was this Ofc. Turnbough’s way of telling Ofc. Shelby that his Taser was enough to handle the situation?

Because the charging affidavit goes on to say:

“… that Officer Shelby reacted unreasonably by escalating the situation from a confrontation with Mr. Crutcher, who was not responding to verbal commands and was walking away from her with his hands held up, becoming emotionally involved to the point that she over reacted.”

since the owner was right THERE why and how is it an “abandoned”vehicle???? the owner clearly had NOT LEFT the vehicle he was with it and when he saw the first officer arrive(the shooter) he walked towards her asking for help OBVIOUSLY, then the video picks it up as she has also clearly directed him to go back to the car.

Bill,
“abandoned vehicle” and “suspect” have been improperly used in the media. Terence was not a “suspect,” had committed no crime, and the police were not looking for him as a person suspected for a crime.

I also read the “innocent until proven guilty” directed towards Shelby. Well, she shot and killed Terence, so she is guilty of that. He posed no threat, so he was not killed in self-defense. But, we know that somewhere during trial Shelby is going to be given “discretion” to kill which is a subject I’m writing on and hope to have posted in a couple of days.

Great news, but I wish she was charged with second degree murder. I guess they figured there would be a greater chance of a conviction with manslaughter. Even so, I hope she goes to prison for a long time.

Is Campbell conceding that this happened even though Crump’s photo enlargement proves it to be impossible? Will it be conceded during trial by the prosecutor with no photo enlargement like Crump’s entered into evidence to disprove that claim?

If the prosecutor in court only pushes the “heat of passion” narrative, wouldn’t Shelby’s defense attorney simply make a strong case to the jury that Ofc. Shelby feared for her life from her personal assessment at that moment of the event?

In a September 23, 2016 article (“What we know about Betty Shelby, the Tulsa officer who shot Terence Crutcher”) by the Crimesider staff, one can already see how Shelby’s attorney is going to put forth her defense:

“[The charge] carries a degree of intent, a degree of recklessness, and that’s not Betty Shelby,” Woods told the station. “Ask anyone, anyone who has worked with her. That’s not Betty Shelby.”

Will the prosecution be “stuck” with the wording of the charging document that includes “Mr. Crutcher reaches in the driver’s side front window…” Was the document simply poorly written or was it “cleverly” written to weaken the case?

From Ofc. Shelby’s vantage point, she had the perfect position/view to see that Terence’s arm was not penetrating into the driver’s window. And, yet Shelby’s attorney Scott Wood is quoted as saying the following in a September 20, 2016 Tulsa World article:

“He has his hands up and is facing the car and looks at Shelby, and his left hand goes through the car window, and that’s when she fired her shot,” Wood told the Tulsa World.

Why is this “defense” narrative seemingly accepted in the words of the charging affidavit? And, will the prosecutor have to stick to that story because it is in the affidavit?